THE UNION — ITS DANGERS— PROGRESS, 



SPEECH 



c > 



V 




u. s 



* VVASHV 



•*- 3 



. ¥. W. WICK, OF INDIANA. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1S48. 






In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. 






Mr. WrCKsaid: 

The public records and public press inform our 
•constituents that a great majority of the measures 
acted upon by this House, are considered, discuss- 
ed, and prepared for final decision in a Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
and that a large portion of the time of the House 
is- spent in its capacity as such committee— the 
state of the Union being much more frequently the 
theme of discussion than is the particular bill for 
ihe time being before the House. 

They read that " in a multitude of counsellors 
there is' safety." They know that this House is 
a multitude, though I will add, en passant, that 
when they come to our Flail, (as they do when on 
their way to attend their popular conventions, and 
on certain other occasions,) they betray the most 
unaffected surprise at the unexpected character and 
lout ensemble of this " multitude of counsellors." 
Seeing that we are almost daily engaged in a con- 
sideration of the "state of the Union," they come 
to the conclusion that the Union is very safe in 
our hands — the more especially as the most of us 
were not backward when seeking a place here, to 
make known our extreme devotion to the Union, 
and our ardent desire to perpetuate it. 

They moreover gather, or infer from the fact of 
so much of the time of this House being devoted 
to a consideration of " the state of the Union," 
that there is danger, more or less, of a dissolution 
of the Union of States, and of parties, and this 
their apprehension is not a mere fantasy. There. 
is danger — not imminent and immediate — but re- 
mole. The selfish man, who cares for nothing but 
that things may go well in his day, has little cause 
to be alarmed; for such is the attachment of the 
American people to the Union of the States, that 
its dissolution will be a work of time. But the 
paternal man, who loves his children, and the chil- 
dren of his neighbors, and would provide against 
evils to which future generations may be exposed, 
and the patriot, whose bosom glows with love of 
country, may well and reasonably fear. The be- 
nevolent man, who loves his race, and has been 
naturally led to consider this country and its insti- 
tutions as of inestimable value to human nature, 
has a right to be anxious. His hopes, as to the 
destiny of the United States, may turn out to be 
but dreams. 



It will be germane to a consideration of the state 
of the Union, if not to the bill under consideration, 
to point out the incipient causes ever at work, un- 
dermining the foundation of the symmetrical struc- 
ture composing the Union of the States. That 
structure is of the composite order, combining the 
majesty of the Gothic, the sturdy strength of the 
Doric, the chaste neatness of the Ionic, and the 
ornate beauty of the Corinthian orders. It can 
never be overturned by open attack; but it may be 
subverted by underminingand removingthe found- 
ation, which foundation is the Constitution of the 
United States, in its letter, and in inferences which 
must be drawn from it. A resort to, or adoption 
of, inferences which might be drawn from it, will 
be fatal. 

From the time of the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion to this hour, Federalism has been engaged in 
a struggle — open when in power, and at other limes 
covert — the object of which has been, to lead, or 
force the General Government into the exercise of 
powers which may be inferred from the Constitu- 
tion; while Democracy, or Republicanism, has as 
constantly resisted the exercise by the General 
Government of any powers except those delegated 
by the Constitution in express words, or which 
must be inferred therefrom. It may be said, and 
truly, too— more's the pity— that many men call- 
ing themselves Republicans, have contended, and 
are now contending, for the exercise t5f certain 
powers which are admittedly neither expressly 
delegated by, nor yet of necessity to be inferred 
from the words of, the Constitution. My answer 
is, that such men may have cailed themselves Re- 
publicans, and may have voted generally with the 
Democratic party; they may have been, and may 
now be, generally recognized as members of the 
Democratic party; but they have been, and are 
Federalists, notwithstanding. Or, if they deny the 
exercise by the General Government of powers 
not expressly granted, or of necessity inferred, on 
all points except one or two, they are yet more 
dangerous than thorough-going Federalists; be- 
cause, being recognized as" Republicans, there is 
danger that they may mislead the unwary into the 
adoption of their opinions, and so contribute to 
make the Democratic party anything but a unit, in 
consequence of ihe spread of dangerous heresies. 
So, too, it may be said, and said truly, that, at 



f$ty9 






times, nearly the entire Democratic party have 
■ Ided points, and even passed laws inconsistent 
■with the strict construction of the Constitution, 
which I have predicated. My response to this is, B 
that for a time immediately preceding such action 
of a portion — perhaps a majority — of the Demo- 
cratic party, Federalism had occupied the Halls of 
legislation and the Executive chair, and had sway- 
ed her leaden sceptre over. the land, and riveted 
down her abuses. Democracy coming into power, 
accommodated itself to the existing state of things, 
whether wisely or not, I will not express an opinion. 
One by one rivets were drilled out, or wrenched 
away, and the fact was gradually developed, that 
instead of being necessary to keep together the 
machinery of the body politic, or proper parts 
thereof, they were but miserable contrivances to 
make the rich richer, and the poor poorer; to in- 
troduce a corrupting influence into the very capil- 
laries of the popular body, and to strip the States 
of their original inherent sovereignty. 

Were I, in the article of death, to be called upon 
by those constituents to whom I am deeply indebt- 
ed, to point out the causes to be apprehended, as 
tending to produce the final and fatal catalepsy of 
the Republic, I would, in view of the moral respon- 
sibilities impending, designate, as the principal 
proximate cause, without hesitation, and with as- 
sured certainty, the exercise, loith reference to inter- 
nal affairs, by the General Government, of powers 
neither expressly granted to it by the letter of the Con- 
stitution, nor of necessity, to be inferred therefrom. 

There is behind this proximate cause a remote 
cause, of which I must say something before I 
resume my seat. 

I shall not reiterate the well-known doctrines of 
the Democratic party concerning the original sov- 
ereignty of the States, and the result of a grant of 
powers to the General Government; nor will I 
pause to reason analytically, as to the sure danger 
of construing the Constitution liberally in favor of 
grants of power to the General Government. That 
task has been performed, many times, by those 
having claims to ability and authority greater than 
I may truly boast of. 

I propose to establish, practically, that the exer- 
tion by the General Government of powers not 
expressly granted has, in all instances produced 
mischief. And — 

First. There is no clause in the Constitution 
conferring power upon the General Government to 
charter a bank. The power, nevertheless, was 
exercised. Did the bank do good ? Did it benefit 
the masses? Did it purify the currency ? An old 

Sroverb declares that " all is well that ends well." 
>id the bank end well ? What is the opinion and 
feeling of the common mind upon these points 
noio? When Federalism found itself in power in 
1840, did her high-priests dare to present the bank 
idea — its dead and rotten corpse — till they had 
dressed it in "bra new duds," and christened it 
"Fiscality ?" Have not those high priests been com- 
pelled, by public opinion, to blink their faith, and 
to pronounce some gibberish about an " obsolete 
idea," as a lullaby to the jealousies of their own 
partisans? Dare they now publish, as an article 
in their party creed, their declaration " '.hat Con- 
gress has power to charter a bank of discount and 
issue, and that it is expedient to exercise that 
power?" They dare publish no such article of 



faith. They dare pronounce their country in the 
wrong, and as engaged in an unjust and unneces- 
sary war, as a party; they might venture upon 
almost any declaration, any specimen of moral 
treason in reference to a subject not yet fully un- 
derstood by the people. They are bold gentlemen, 
and are in desperate circumstances, and would 
therefore venture much. But to declare in favor 
of a bank, against which the masses have repeat- 
edly decided, would be a piece of Quixotic gal- 
lantry, quite uncalled for. Bank literature will 
not therefore be proclaimed, just at present, either 
in the body of the temple of Federalism or at the 
vestibule, where it may fall upon vulgar ears, and 
be " very much misunderstood." Till the time shall 
come when Federalism shall be " once in the sad- 
dle," and no " fixed fact"shall stand in the way — 
as John Tyler did, like the angel before Balaam 
and his ass — till that time come, the literature of 
Chesnut street, the lore of " fiscal agencies," must 
be kept from " the public eye," and remain in 
the Holy of Holies, to be read, talked, and thought 
of only by those who minister there. I am no 
friend to the batik, but " I am a gentleman of bow- 
els," and if this same bank were a " real human,''' 
I acknowledge I should feel rather pathetic, 'in 
view of the ingratitude manifested towards it. It 
bought up editors, leading men, and politicians for 
" the party" by the hundred; it browbeat every- 
body, and, more or less, either frightened or cajoled 
nearly every one but old Lion Heart and his 
" kitchen cabinet. " And now, after all this, to be 
pronounced an " obsolete idea," and be smuggled 
away out of sight, and (ostensibly at least) laid on 
the shelf among the old, thrice-condemned Federal 
lumber — the alien and sedition laws, the Hartford 
Convention, and blue lights! — " I wish I may die 
if it is not too bad!" 

Again: It is but a few years ago since Federal- 
ism boldly advocated the doctrine of adjusting the 
tariff with a direct reference to assisting our manu- 
facturers, by enhancing their profits, and found a 
few Democratic votes subservient to that doctrine. 
This idea was called protection. Democracy op- 
posed it, intruded upon it, and finally overthrew it 
in 1846. The Constitution confers the power upon 
Congress to levy duties upon importations for the 
support of the Government. Federalism claimed 
that under a liberal construction of this grant, the 
power of protection could be exerted, and ought to 
be exercised freely. The people were carried away 
for a time, in portions of the country, by this idea. 
They were made to believe that American inge- 
nuity, industry, and capital, aided by cheap pro- 
visions for operatives, and inexhaustible water- 
power, could not compete with foreign ingenuity, 
industry, and capital, without levying from the 
masses a further bonus in favor of the manufactur- 
er, in the shape of high taxes. Many Democrats 
in name were carried away by this absurdity, and 
others feared to boldly advocate the truth as they 
understood it. But time, which proves all things, 
exposed this heresy; and one of the fruits of the 
Democratic victory, in 1844, was its perfect explo- 
sion. In the 29th Congress there were but few 
Democrats adverse to the doctrine of free trade, and 
these few, it could, by an individual and personal 
application of circumstances, be demonstrated were 
controlled by local interests or political timidity. 
And now, in 1848, the prophesies of Federalism 



8 



having been disproved by experience — the tariff of 
1846 having improved both the revenue and the 
markets — no Democrat can be found to advocate 
the exploded idea. And Federalism, which for- 
merly was so obstreperous in favor of protection — 
whose priests formerly bellowed in our ears, in 
ominous tones, making our hearts to tremble, and 
our knees to knock together, the catch words, 
Protection, Home Market, Foreign Pauper Labor, 
and all of that sort of thing, now have grown mild, 
and " roar you an it were any sucking dove." 

Assembled in Convention, a few days since, 
to nominate a Presidential candidate, they dared 
neither reassert nor declare an abandonment of 
their ancient tariff doctrines. They let "expres- 
sive silence sing" the praise of the Democratic 
tariff of 1846, and blinked the confession of past 
errors, which they owed to their own honor, and 
to the world. 

No Democrat will now quarrel with me for as- 
suming; that experience has proved that there is no 
necessity for straining points, and making free con- 
structions of the Constitution, so as to infer there- 
from the power to charter a bank. He will rather 
unite with me in hoping that the day may soon 
come when the States may all cease to exercise 
that power, or by amending their constitutions, 
either restrain their legislatures from the granting of 
such charters as now exist, or deny the power alto- 
gether. Were f a young man, I should expect to 
see the States redeem themselves from the corrupt- 
ins; influence of banks, from the baleful and par- 
alyzing effects of bank suspensions, and bursts, 
and from the meanness of a debauched currency, 
and of the shinplaster abomination, forever and 
ever. 

But thus far, Democracy can only boast that it 
has driven the idea of a national bank into disgrace, 
taken away from Federalism her magic wand, com- 
pelled her to confess as an " obsolete idea" that 
which was once, to her, as a household god, and 
forced her to smuggle it into existence (as she 
would, if she had the power) under some new 
name and disguise devised by the priests who 
minister at her altars. 

Nor can any Democrat now be made to cower at 
the mention of" free trade," or forced to compro- 
misingly give utterance to the Shibboleth, " inci- 
dental protection." On the contrary, he speaks of 
*• free trade" in manly phrase, as an idea to be ap- 
proximated as closely as may comport with rev- 
enue. And Federalism which formerly, in portions 
of the Union, was able to make Democrats afraid 
by boldly blustering forth her real doctrines in fa- 
vor of a tariff, heavily protective — such as would 
" take care of the rich, and enable the rich to take 
care of the poor" — now modestly squeaks forth a 
declaration or rather protest, begging favor for the 
idea of " incidental protection." 

Upon these two points of controversy, concern- 
ing claimed inferential powers, Democracy has 
achieved a perfect victory, demonstrated the truth 
of her positions by experience, and silenced if not 
convinced her adversary. Whether the safety of 
the Union, and individual welfare shall, or shall 
not again be endangered by a return to power of a 
political party whose creed does not forbid the ex- 
ercise of powers not expressly granted, or, of ne- 
cessity to be inferred, and whose instincts will 
inevitably lead thereto, depends upon the will of 



the American people. It is to lie hoped that 
intelligence, or at least then memory, « i! 1 be found 
equal to the occasion. The Israelites did oluh I 
jewels to make a calf god while fin. and smoke, 
and thunder, and lightn n Sina p yet 

demonstrated the existence and presence of the true 
God before their eyes; but it would be a libel upon 
the American people to suppose it possible for 
them to be equally besotted, and stupid. And yet 
a reference to the past might inspire one with some 
diffidence upon this point. For it has happened 
that a small number of those calling themselves 
Democrats did, by voting with their opponents, 
throw the (Government into the hands of Federal- 
ism, and they only escaped the fearful consequen- 
ces naturally resulting from a forgetfulness so 
criminal, through the unforeseen and unexpected 
intervention of the supreme and good Providence, 
which <: has made and preserved us a nation." 

In the progress of legislation other schemes have 
been, and. will be brought forward, requiring legis- 
lation by Congress upon subjects, the care and su- 
perintendence of which are not committed to the 
General Government; and, upon all such occasions 
Federalism has ever thrown, and without doubt, 
will continue to throw the weight of her votes in 
favor of the exercise of the forbidden powers, with 
an eye to h*cr never-forgotien plan of extending the 
operations of the General Government, and clipping 
the States of their sovereignty. At present, 1 will 
content myself with naming, as two of those 
schemes, the appropriation by Congress of money 
for carrying out a system of internal improvements, 
and the legislation by Congress for the Territories 
in reference to municipal matters, to the extinction 
of the sovereignty of the people thereof. 

Upon both of these points, Democracy, true to 
herself, has defined her position in the resolutions 
of the late Baltimore Convention. It is, however, 
much to be feared that there are dissenters from 
the common and declared creed to be found even 
among the acknowledged members of the Demo- 
cratic body. Federalism never reasons. It never 
speaks from an intelligent conscience. It prates 
of expediency, and presents the bright side of a 
scheme, without permitting the dafk side to be 
seen by the people. Thus, an advocate of a sys- 
tem of internal improvement presents the advan- 
tages to result from the improvement of harbors 
and rivers, and the making of railways and canals; 
but he does not inform the people that these things 
always cost money; that because of the distance 
of the General Government from the scene of oper- 
ations, public works cost the Government many 
times as much money as the like works cost when 
executed by States, companies, or individuals. He 
speaks in glowing terms to his constituents of the 
convenience to them of having this or that public 
work carried on by the United States, and well 
knows how to enlist the mercenary, by represent- 
ing the advantage to result from large expenditures 
of money in their immediate vicinity, and by hint- 
ing that a contract may fall to their share, yielding 
the large profits generally yielded by all Govern- 
ment contracts. But will he tell the honest masses 
that the money thus expended near them must 
every dollar be raised from them by taxation ? 
Never. 

If internal improvements should be carried on 
by the General Government, one of three things 



If a larger amount 

mnsr them in im- 

;,rr.\< menifi^hnn nngthem through 

vi'. of their fair 
re, they will be 
holding an advantage over other, and more neglect- 
ed sections, which, as honest men, they must ac- 
knowledge to he unrighteous. Of incurring the 
guilt of this unrighteousness, my constituents are 
in little danger. They are not in the vicinity of 
any possible public work, except the Cumberland 
road, which seems, by a consent almost common, 
to have been dropped out of the system. 

Again : if just about their reasonable share of 
an internal improvement fund should be expended 
upon useful works of improvement among them, 
they could not accuse themselves of unrighteous- 
ness, and the only drawback upon their satisfac- 
tion would be, that because of the General Govcrn- 
ernment expending money for any (but especially 
for such) objects, they have taxed themselves to 
improve, or make some kind of public facility, at 
many times its reasonable value. And if it should 
turn out that very little, if any, of the internal im- 
provement fund should be expended among them, 
or upon any work in which they have more than a 
remote interest, lam inclined to believe they would 
begin \c\-y much to doubt the constitutionality of 
such expenditure; and that tliey would decide 
againstthe expediency of such a fleecing operation, 
there is no doubt. 

The present Chief Magistrate of the United 
States has, on two occasions, exercised the ex- 
traordinary legislative function committed to his 
hands by the Constitution, by preventing the pas- 
sage, into laws, of internal improvement bills which 
had passed both Houses of Congress, exerting, for 
that purpose, what is commonly called " the veto 

Cower." He lost no friends among my constituents 
y so doing. Instead of finding or making occa- 
sion to apologize for, or explain my votes against 
one of these bills, after it was vetoed, and against 
the other on all occasions, I acknowledged to my 
constituents mv error in judgment in voting for 
one of those bills before it was vetoed, and prom- 
ised to do so*no more; and with that, my ever kind 
Democratic constituency let me off. 

I have not found leisure to collate proposed ex- 
penditures provided for by bills pending in both 
Houses for internal improvements, nor can any one 
now foresee what amendments will be offered to 
bills when they come up? providing for expendi- 
tures not now in the calendar. I have not even 
looked into the calendar of the Senate. I have, 
however, looked casually and hastily over a por- 
tion of the bills originating in the House, and those 
which, having passed the Senate, await the action 
of the House, and, inter alia, I find the following, 
which are to be passed, I suppose, by hook or by 
crook, viz: 

For Improving streets in this city ' ,«:)'>. ISO 

For the purchase of bridpes r<>r tins city 30V 00 

For harbors and rivers, (in light house' hill) 73 fcOO 

For light-houses, (in lipht house bill) ' 120,0 o 

Fur light-housee, (in civil and diplomatic bill) Hi~,000 

Not one dollar of these sums will be expended 
among my constituents, nor will a dollar thereof 
teach their pockets. Nor have they even a remote 
interest in any of the improvements authorized by 
the appropriations, unless it may be supposed that 



the appropriations for the Ohio and Mississippi 
rivers may tend, very remotely, to promote their 
interest. Many of them have traversed the upper 
Ohio, and satisfied themselves that the money here- 
tofore expended there, in attempts to improve the 
navigation, has, in fact, produced artificial obstruc- 
tions to such navigation. There is a hill on the 
calendar appropriating some refuse land towards 
completing the Cumberland road; but does any one 
dream that it will pass? Is it not very certain to 
"get a go-by," or to be voted down? In this 
(which is to be the usual) state of things, is it a 
matter of wonder that vetoes of internal-improve- 
ment bills should be well received by those I rep- 
resent? But again: my constituents are not con- 
tent with examining this matter in the light of the 
existing state of things; they look a head, and foresee 
the mighty rivers of Texas, Oregon, and Califor- 
nia coming into the system, and estimate, without 
more arithmetic than they can master, by counting 
on their fingers, that their shifting sands, their fickle 
channels, their mighty cascades, and their tens of 
thousands of miles, would ingulf, sink, and sweep 
away the revenues of the world. Hence, those of 
them who do not, at once, sustain the President as 
to the unconstitutionality of such expenditure, do 
not hesitate a moment to sustain his repeated exer- 
cise of the veto power on this point, upon the score 
of expediency? and 1 believe they are generally 
very willing to see it adopted as a part of the 
national creed, that such expenditures are uncon- 
stitutional. Of course, I except from this category 
such as have some selfish or political reason for 
affecting to entertain a contrary opinion. Ethics 
were not made for those who calculate personal 
interests, and shape political opinion accordingly, 
nor is candor the attribute of the ambitious. 

Some of the appropriations for internal improve- 
ment, now pending in one or the other of the 
Houses, are inserted in the ordinary appropria- 
tion bills, without the passage of which the Gov- 
ernment cannot go on. Othersof them, I prophesy, 
will be inserted therein by way of amendment. 
Nay more, I have a prescience that there will be 
grafted upon those bills yet other amendments of 
this character, which, at present, are not thought 
of generally, but will be dragged forth, in due time, 
from their hiding-place in the bosom of selfish- 
ness, or of political cunning. The effect of such a 
course will be to compel the President to either 
approve measures in the very teeth of principles 
deliberately avowed in previous solemn, and well- 
considered veto messages, or to assume the respon- 
sibility of hazarding the passage of the appropria- 
tion bills at the present session, and the expend- 
iture incident to a call of a special session of 
Congress. If the bills should be rejected by the 
President, before an adjournment, but in the last 
hours of the session, after an adjournment sjiall be 
resolved on, a call of Congress will be almost cer- 
tain; and if they should be rejected constitutionally, 
after an adjournment, the call will be indispensable. 
The President is vested by the Constitution with 
certain powers. With certain limitations, he is an 
independent branch of the Legislature. His opin- 
ions are known. We are not in the dark on the 
subject. Unless, then, we are sure that he will 
abandon points of constitutional law, which he 
has, under oath, deliberately assumed, and, after 
time for reflection, reasserted, or that we have a 



two-thirds majority in favor of our internal-im- 
provement appropriations, and can pass them full 
ten days before adjournment, we take upon our- 
selves the responsibility of causing the expendi- 
ture incident to a special session of Congress. I 
have heard it said that the President has not the 
firmness to adhere to his principles under the cir- 
cumstances which I have predicated. I have not 
the slightest authority to speak for him, here or 
elsewhere; but 1 know a little of the man, and 
more of the circumstances which surround him. 
He is about to retire from the chair of state, and, 
in all human probability, from the political arena, 
forever. If behave, in his construction, the elements 
for which 1 have given him credit, he understands 
himself as living for history, and will not, under 
any circumstances, beat a cowardly and scandalous 
retreat from that which he has declared to be his 
sworn duty. And if he be the "Young Hickory" 
which we Democrats endorsed him for in 1844, he 
must be gifted with, at least, some of the perti- 
nacity and conscience of "Old Hickory, "as well as 
ordinary pride of character. If you think ill of my 
judgment, bring James K. Polk to the test. Try 
him. If he fail to give you yet another " touch of 
his quality," you may set me down as no prophet. 
I wili scarcely be suspected of any desire to pre- 
vail on the other side of the House, having little 
party interest in their good conduct. I profess, 
however, a good will to caution my Democratic 
brethren to ke^p out of a "nasty scrape." The 
utter impossibility of raising money to keep up 
annual appropriations for harbors upon the Atlantic 
and Pacific coasts, and upon the lakes, and for the 
improvement of the rivers upon the Atlantic and 
Pacific slopes, and in the great valley, ought to 
admonish us to abandon such appropriations at 
once; for, in the end, they will be abandoned of 
necessity. It may be said that this is a new Dem- 
ocratic idea. Well, suppose it to be so, and what 
then? Are we not the " progressive" Democracy? 
New ideas must arise as new circumstances pre- 
sent themselves. Besides, the idea is not entirely 
new. It was started in the early days of the Re- 
public, it took a wide stride in the days of the Man 
of the Jge, has progressed during the present Ad- 
ministration, and will be forced, by events and 
circumstances just at hand, upon us by the su- 
preme law of necessity. 

It has been said that, on this subject, one of the 
existing political parties in this country has little 
to boast of, as compared with the other. With 
the candor which I have resolved shall on all occa- 
sions characterize what I may say here, I will 
confess that while the Whig party has been con- 
sistently wrong, on this subject, 'the Democratic 
party has not been very consistently and unitedly 
right. In consequence of the presence in its body 
of many dissenters, it has been fearfully addicted 
to backsliding. But, upon the whole, it has, true 
to its leading characteristic, been, even in reference 
to this subject, " progressive." Reforms, like revo- 
lutions, never go backwards. We shall "go on 
to perfection." Who will be the last Democrat 
who will be found casting his votes with Federal- 
ism, on this subject? 

Upon 'he other point which I have indicated as 
being now in controversy, and from the misunder- 
standing whereof there is danger to the Union im- 
pending—I allude to the sovereignty of the people 



of the Territories in reference to matters of muni- 
cipal legislation — I have a few sentences to utter. 
Territories, as organised bod 'un- 

known to the Constitution, not t> 
named therein. Tbe po.wer.lo legislate for them, 
in this Hall and in the Senate Chamber, is claimed 
under a clause in the Constitution which is in these 
words, viz: " The Congress shall have -power to dis- 
' pose of, and make all needful rules and regulations 
1 concerning, the territory or other property of the 
' United Stales.'' , At the time the Constitution was 
adopted, the United States owned, in sovereignty, 
and subject only to the extinction of the Indian 
claim, an immense and almost unexplored and un- 
known extent of territory. It was easy to foresee 
that (as did subsequently come to pass) settlements 
would be made in different portions of this terri- 
tory, remote from each other, and yet nearly 
simultaneously, and that thus many inchoate bodies 
politic must, of necessity, soring into existence. 
Had it. been the intention of the Convention to 
confer legislative sovereignty over these bodies 
politic upon Congress, the grant of such sover- 
eignty would have been made in express words. 
The object of the clause which I have quoted from 
the Constitution is evidently not intended to confer 
political sovereignty. It only authorizes Congress 
to legislate concerning the territory of the United 
States as property — land. If it had been intended to 
confer upon Congress political sovereignty over 
the Territories of the United States, the plural of 
the word "territory" would have been used, and 
"territory" would not have been classed with 
property, and evidently characterized as such by 
being immediately followed by the words "and 
other properly of the United Slates." 

A recent writer and orator upon this subject, 
more remarkable for ability and ingenuity than for 
conscientiousness, has misquoted this clause of the 
Constitution, or perhaps I may say amended it, 
by striking out the word "territory," and insert- 
ing in lieu thereof the word " Territories," thereby 
leaving the incautious reader, who does not exam- 
ine the Constitution for himself, to believe the ab- 
surdity that the Constitution makes Territories, in 
their capacity as bodies political — i. e., the bodies 
and souls of the population — the " property of the 
United States.'' Parliament never asserted so 
much concerning the people of the Colonies, though 
it did assert its own power "to legislate for the 
Colonies in all cases whatsoever. '' And for and 
because of that declaration, far more than because 
of the "tea tax," did our forefathers assert and 
achieve their independence. This unauthorized 
substitution of a plural for a singular enabled the 
writer in question, and other advocates of the doc- 
trine of the supremacy of Congress over the su- 
premacy of the people, to stagger along on a lame 
argument. Without it, their idea has no constitu- 
tional support. I have heard the decisions of 
courts quoted to establish this doctrine. Such au- 
thority is not satisfactory. I can find precedent, 
and decisions of courts, and of Congress, to sus- 
tain a bank of the United States, and every item 
of the Federal creed. Inasmuch, then, as the 
Constitution has not conferred the sovereignty of 
the Territories upon Congress, I claim it for the 
source of all sovereignty— THE PEOPLE. 

From what I have said, it appears that the 
grand distinction between Federalism and Democ- 



6 



racy consists in this: Federalism claims for the 
rovernn tl ■. right to exercise many 
racy assigns to the States. 
Examine this distinction in the light of common 
sense, and which doctrine is the best for the people? 
Can the General Government exercise power with- 
out encountering expenditure ? Every one will see 
that the answer to this question must be in the 
negative. It involves expenditure to pass a law 
through Congress; but in most cases this is. but as 
"a drop in the bucket," compared with the ex- 
penditure incident to the execution of the law, if 
it be temporary. If it be a permanent law, (as 
most are,) requiring constant or even annual exe- 
cution, then the machinery, the officers employed 
in and the action of that execution, becomes a 
permanent burden upon the treasury. It is in con- 
sequence of Congressional legislation upon new 
subjects — many of them unauthorized by the Con- 
stitution — far more than in consequence of our na- 
tional growth, and the extension of our borders, 
that the national expenditure has increased in the 
progress of time. National expenditure would be 
a public, and individual blessing, if the Government 
possessed means of meeting it other than raising it 
from the people by the process of taxation. But the 
fact is otherwise. Every dime expended the people 
must pay into the Government coffers. To raise 
money, the Government has no resort but the pock 
ets of the people; and to them it is precisely the 
same, so far as the amount is concerned, whether 
the resort be direct, through what is called "direct 
taxation," or indirect, through tariffs. Federal- 
ism, when it speaks on this subject, very usually 
presents to the people only the expenditure, and 
the advantages to result therefrom. It is usually 
silent as to the taxation consequent upon expendi- 
ture; and it never points to the well-known fact 
that the General Government cannot — never has, 
and never will — expend money economically, as a 
State or an individual may. Democracy proclaims 
the " whole truth" upon the subject; and this may 
be the occasional cause of temporary defeat. If 
individual Democrats do occasionally play the 
Federalist, by telling the agreeable half of the story, 
they go on Swimmingly for a season; but in the 
end they sputter out. The conclusion is, that the 
Union is in danger from the General Government 
exercising too much power, and raising and ex- 
pending too much money. 

Another evil, to result from the free exercise of 
power by the General Government, the expendi- 
ture consequent upon that, and the taxation con- 
sequent upon expenditure, must be either direct 
taxes, or further pinching restrictions upon the 
laws of trade, resulting from an increased tariff of 
duties. 

In connection with this subject — the exercise by 
the General Government of (towers not conferred 
by the Constitution, and the consequent evils — I 
have named a bank, a tariff for protection, internal 
improvements, and prescribing municipal laws for 
the Territories. These are by no means all the 
subjects which I might introduce, analyze, and 
explain, in support of my argument. In the prog- 
ress of our affairs, matters will hereafter arise upon 
which the same principles will bear in a similar 
manner. When those new questions shall arise, 
Federalism will frequently, for a time, succeed by 
bringing into the field her plausibilities and appa- 



rent expediencies. But the grand test of truth — 
experience — will ever prove that it is neither neces- 
sary nor for the better, but altogether unnecessary 
and for the worse, for the General Government 
to assume powers not expressly conferred by the 
Constitution, strictly construed. It is upon this 
point — that of a strict construction of the Constitu- 
tion — that Democracy must stand. All departures 
from it involve it in the swampy grounds of Fed- 
eralism, and get it into trouble. The day will 
come when it will stand intact of a single sin or 
heresy upon this point, and without a dissenter 
among its adherents; or otherwise the Constitution 
will be lost sight of, and a " common law," com- 
posed of precedents, take its place. Congress will 
then legislate almost without limitation; the Gen- 
eral Government will be a splendid and expensive 
affair; the States will have but a nominal and com- 
plimentary sovereignty; they will be sovereign de 
jure, but not de facto; the people will find them- 
selves burdened with a permanent public debt and 
high taxes, and there will be an aristocracy of 
bankers, manufacturers, and holders of permanent 
American stocks. There will be a Democracy, 
too; but it will be too poor to go into the political 
market and buy votes, and too powerless to con- 
trol them. It will have two glorious privileges: 
that of grumbling, and that of rebelling. But prac- 
tical influence it will have none, till again grasped 
by the rude and reckless hand of revolution. 

I have intended, by what I have said, to lead to 
one grand practical idea, in addition to a consider- 
ation ofDemocratic theory. The practical idea is 
this, to wit: that Democratic private men are in 
constant danger of being beguiled into the adop- 
tion of Federal dogmas by the presentation to their 
minds of plausibilities or apparent expediencies, 
comporting with local interests. For example: a 
manufacturer might be inclined to waive the appli- 
cation of the doctrine of strict construction so far 
as to admit a little protection into a tariff law be- 
yond that which is purely incidental. So a resi- 
dent on our seaboard, lakes, and rivers, may think 
that the power to expend money in internal im- 
provements must be somehow or other conferred 
upon Congress by the Constitution. He cannot 
but be puzzled, when requested to find the article 
or clause in which the power is directly given; 
but yet insists that it is there. So, also, one mor- 
ally opposed to slavery will insist that Congress 
ought to legislate for the Territories, at least so far 
as to exclude slavery therefrom. The amount of 
it is, that these gentlemen are clamorous in favor 
of a strict construction of the Constitution (the sole 
principle of a purely political character, which dis- 
tinguishes Democracy from Federalism) till that 
doctrine trenches upon some special interest or 
prejudice of their own, and then they insist on 
waiving the principle. How will this work ? Let 
us see. The Democrats of one section will insist 
on the necessity of Congress legislating to keerj 
slavery out of Territories. For the sake of una- 
nimity, the Democracy of other sections yield this 
point. The Democrats of other quarters come 
forward, and insist that the power to engage in 
works of internal improvements must be squeezed 
out of the Constitution, though it should be as dif- 
ficult as to "extract blood from a turnip." For the 
sake of political fraternity that point also is yield- 
ed. Then come the Democrats from the manu- 



Picturing districts, and insist, that in virtue of 
certain constitutional inferences, Congress has 
power to give them a little direct protection, and 
that they are very needy for the want of it. To 
give them contentment, that point is given up. 
Lastly come the Democrats of the cities and towns, 
and suggest that they are much hampered in the 
way of "business facilities," and that a national 
bank — a fiscality — is actually necessary for them. 
This is rather startling; but as it is threatened that 
a separate organization and defection will be the 
consequence of a refusal, that point is yielded too. 
Thus, one by one, every Democratic principle is 
yielded, and the Democratic party is thoroughly 
Federalized. If one minority can force the major- 
ity on one point, other minorities have an equal 
right to force the majority on other points; and 
thus minorities may excise, seriatim, every prac- 
tical opinion resulting from the Democratic creed, 
anil lead us back into the fold of Federalism. 

The difficulties which have arisen in the Demo- 
cratic party, in consequence of the existence of 
points of difference in opinion, can only be ad- 
justed by minorities conceding to majorities. The 
majority, uninfluenced by local interest or preju- 
dice, will naturally be in the right. It may safely 
be avowed, that in no single instance have minori- 
ties carried any point otherwise than by a union, 
for the time being, with Federalism, from the con- 
sequences of which adulterous union they have 
not escaped unhurt, nor except upon working out 
their salvation with much fear, trembling, and 
repentance. 

The masses belonging to the Democratic party 
do not naturally desire to dissent from the major- 
ity; and it is my clear conviction that they glide 
into false positions because political men and the 
corps editorial mislead them. Instead of honestly 
cautioning them against Federal ideas, made for 
the time acceptable in consequence of local inter- 
ests or opinions, it has seemed to me that very 
frequently political men and editors go out of their 
way to bridle and saddle some miserable hobby, 
and mount and ride it with extraordinary evi- 
dences of exhilaration. This want of political 
candor and courage is the remote cause of disunion 
to which I have alluded. God make the politi- 
cians honest. The people are so. 

I have said that Democracy is progressive. Fed- 
eralism has wagged her head, and in reproach and 
derision called us " the progressive Democracy," 
and we have not taken the saying as a reproach, 
but as praise. Monarchy has progressed from that 
which was despotic to that which is limited. 
Kings " progress" as the people demand of them, 
or, in default, have " progressed" into exile, leav- 



ing the place where a throne was, to be occupied 
by the tribune. Literature, science, philosophy, 
the arts, and belles-lettres ; progi their 

adaptation to use '* progiesses."' Moral and 
physical man "progresses." Animals, by cul- 
ture and the crossing of breeds, " progress" in 
beauty and useful qualities. The moral world and 
the physical terra firma keep moving; the planets 
roll on in their courses; systems career through 
immense space; nature, and art, and mind, are in 
progress. Even religious creeds — not religious 
truths — undergo modification, and, for good, "pro- 
gress." Federalism alone is stationary. She 
changes her name, and may blink her favorite 
ideas for a time, till an election can be carried upon 
an "availability;" but in creed, opinion, principle, 
wish, and instinct, she changes not. Unchanged, 
except in mere externals, since 1787, she stands in 
her ancient and murky temple, and grows dizzy 
as she looks out, in amazement, upon the whirl of 
all things as they flit past her in their PROGRESS. 
Aware that her principles are, generally, unac- 
ceptable, the late Federal — I beg pardon, Whig I 
believe is the word now — convention adjourned 
without the formal or informal declaration of any 
creed or platforms Resolutions haying a squinting 
that way were declared to be out of order by the 
presiding officer. A novel but prudent decision, 
without precedent or reason, was this. The emer- 
gency called for it. Like the bird of the wilder- 
ness, our friends of the Whig party hid theirhead 
in the bush, and fancied the world would fail to 
see their tail. The precaution was vain. The 
absurd alliance between the political panty which 
pronounced the late war unnecessary and unjust, 
and the general who led one wing of our conquer- 
ing army, has excited a burst of ridicule and dis- 
gust from one end of my district to the other. It 
will, if I mistake not, give occasion for loud guf- 
faws of derision from Maine to Texas, from Ore- 
gon to California, and the quidnuncs and wits of 
Europe will join in the cachinnatory chorus. Even 
if the great Federal, National Republican, Whig 
party had not estopped itself from a resort to the 
supposed availability of military reputation, the 
Democratic party, always ready to honor Demo- 
cratic heroes, has blundered upon a couple of avail- 
abilities in that line which cannot be defeated. 
The day is not now when radical Democracy, repre- 
sented in the persons of two "volunteer^''' of 1812, 
will be even endangered. The people will remem- 
ber Jackson's Secretary of War* and Jackson's 
aid-de-camp,f and will endorse the preferences of 
" the Man of the As-e." 



r Cass. 



t Butler. 



■ 



w c c 




x 

^ 















• v\ 



<j-> 













„4 Q*. " 



r • •VL% "> 



• A v 



o * 







* v .. 












*o, **7Y^ A 






<> *o • » 



%=> ^-^CT* A 

















v^tf 5 







y o_ 






V^ 1 



V*<V 






















y . 



o V 









^ v » ' • 






» • * \ * 



x ^ 









/S 



% ++o* i 




'bK 



a9 »•/,*'♦ *> 





